There is no evidence Boeing failed to negotiate in good faith with the union, says the author. | AP photo
Close

While it is easy to get distracted by the political motivations of the NLRB’s complaint, it is fundamentally imperative to examine the law. And the law is clear. Employers are permitted to make predictions on future economic circumstances as long as the circumstances are demonstrably probable. This right, guaranteed by the Supreme Court of the United States, allows companies to make economic-based decisions calculated to increase efficiency and productivity — laudable considerations in such an austere fiscal environment.

So is it probable that there would be labor stoppages in Washington, and that such strikes might have an economic impact on the company? Obviously so. Since 1989, Boeing’s Washington factory has had four work stoppages, including one in 2005 and a two-month strike in 2008. These stoppages have caused prominent Boeing customers to voice their concerns over the continued threat of work stoppages and go so far as to reconsider whether to continue doing business with Boeing.

Text Size

-

+

reset

Rational, legal decisions based on cost-benefit analysis do not constitute retaliation. They constitute sound business acumen.

Despite congressional intent and clear Supreme Court jurisprudence, union leadership and unelected NLRB attorneys are now seeking to become managing partners in the business affairs of American companies. South Carolina is confident Boeing will be vindicated in a court of law. However, the NLRB’s jurisdictional overreach, coupled with its brazen activism, threatens the future allocation of work by American companies. Worst of all, it comes at a time when we should be doing everything in our power to stem the tide of American jobs being funneled overseas.

At a time when union membership is at a historic low, unions and their taxpayer-subsidized counsel seek to influence this administration in historically high fashion. This nation needs to come together and face the great challenges of our time. However, many in this administration are seeking to benefit from the politics of class, generational and, now, regional conflict. And then there are those of us protecting the very free-market principles and right-to-work laws that have sustained America’s competitiveness since our country’s founding.

Reps. Joe Wilson and Trey Gowdy, both South Carolina Republicans, serve on the House Education and the Workforce Committee.

No matter what Obama the man says behind his teleprompters, no matter how centrist the White House spin machine tries to frame his image, it is actions like these that drive home the point that the administrative arm of the regime is infected with leftists.

NRLB will lose this; Boeing will spend several $M to defeat the lefties, but that won't dissuade them. They'll be on to new targets until we can throw every last bum out.

A totalitarian dictatorship is the inevitable consequence of trying to centralize all power in Washington D.C., as the socialist party has been doing. Once they have all the power, the bureaucrats no longer regard themselves as servants of the public, but as the masters of it. Their goal is no longer to serve the people, but to keep themselves in power. Every branch of the federal government in Washington D.C. now has keeping Democrats in power as their primary goal. The unions work to keep the socialists in power, and in return the socialists use the functions of government to reward them.

This is the reason for the budget crisis, the huge number of lobbyists in Washington, and the reason that the government no longer represents the people. The only solution is to tear down the Washington dictatorship and spread power among the fifty states, as the Constitution intended. The action of the NLRB against Boeing is just the continuation of the use of government to oppress the people.

All the more reason to take power away from unions. This issue is ridiculous. Unions have become a detriment to our country. Unions have become more about power and benefits for the administrators and less about the actual workers.

Boeing moved this line to South Carolina because they believed that those people will work for less, under worse conditions. For the same reason corporations move overseas to 3rd world countries because people have fewer options for work meaning "more cost effective". This should be viewed as insult to workers of South Carolina. Missing from this opinion piece was coercive and threatening statements made by Boeing, among other things which are illegal. but this was written by politicians, so it can be assumed they would lie. Say what you must, but either you respect the law, or you don't - and Boeing's actions were found to be against the law. South Carolina workers are already preparing to join the IAM union, who look out for them much more than the politicians who lured Boeing in with promises of low wage labor and lax laws. We have become our own 3rd world country.

For Politico to allow this kind of false propaganda, and that is all it is, to be published demonstrates a serious lack of intellectual integrity. The statements found in this article are seditious in nature, promoting the overthrow of the laws, rules and regulations of our Nation which provide a mechanism whereby the Equal Protection clause of the United States Constitution achieve meaningful expression.

The writer and those voicing support for Boeing's actions seek not to create a benefit for the good people of South Carolina as that good has already been achieved in the building of a Boeing plant in their state.

No, what they are attempting to do is assure Boeing that the company has the ability to discriminate against the population of South Carolina and/or Washington. In doing so they damn themselves to a state of eternal suffering because they seek to nullify the judgments of God as communicated in Deuteronomy 25:13-14, “You shall not have in your bag differing weights, a heavy and a light. 14 You shall not have in your house differing measures, a large and a small."

I pray the good people of South Carolina who have demonstrated the good sense to protect themselves against the abuses of union bureaucrats by creating in their State Constitution a right to work will now create a Constitutional mandate which will protect themselves and their fellow countrymen against the hypocrisy promoted in the seditious propaganda forwarded here.

Boeing moved this line to South Carolina because they believed that those people will work for less, under worse conditions. For the same reason corporations move overseas to 3rd world countries because people have fewer options for work meaning "more cost effective". This should be viewed as insult to workers of South Carolina. Missing from this opinion piece was coercive and threatening statements made by Boeing, among other things which are illegal. but this was written by politicians, so it can be assumed they would lie. Say what you must, but either you respect the law, or you don't - and Boeing's actions were found to be against the law. South Carolina workers are already preparing to join the IAM union, who look out for them much more than the politicians who lured Boeing in with promises of low wage labor and lax laws. We have become our own 3rd world country.

Proof of illegality? Don't we have laws on the books already to deal with the "worse conditions" you are talking about? How have unions worked out for the auto manufacturers and America?

Illinoisian. There are laws on the books, which the NLRB is supposed to address - which in this case they are trying. Why get mad when a corporation is prosecuted for something they did knowingly that was illegal? Unfortunately in many cases the fines for this type of behavior is so weak that union busting is calculated into the cost of doing business. Laws with little to no enforcement, and small penalties mean that more often than not - breaking the law is the norm.

Illinoisian: To address the second point - (which I know you will resist even before I begin) Unions have also suffered from democratic leadership who cut deals and sell them out. The problem isn't with unionization, but needs to focus more attention on the actual workers having more say in their workplace. This was the problem with GM - the union leadership was a sellout, and didn't listen to the advice of the people who actually did the work to learn how to make the operation more efficient. GM corporate leadership also had a failed business model of selling hummers and gas guzzling cars. Bad leadership at the top can tank any company. Some successful companies that have unions include NFL, AT&T, Hollywood studios - filming union, the writers guild etc. GE, Union of American Physicians and Dentists, Southwest Airlines Pilots Association... - I strongly believe that people who actually do the work, tend to make better decisions regarding the workplace, such as food safety hazards, how many patients nurses can take on, or in the case of bus drivers or pilots - what is an unsafe number of hours they can fly in a row. Because what matters for CEO's is profit - not you or me, or the people who work for them. I trust a pilot over a CEO any day, over what they think they need to safely operate a flight I am on.

Scott said, “The NLRB’s action represents an unprecedented attack on our free enterprise system and it ignores 45 years of NLRB and Supreme Court precedent, which holds that an employer has a legitimate and permissible interest in preventing future work stoppages.”

There is no justification for the NLRB's action. It is a blatant attempt to improperly use the force and resources of the Government to support unions and cow private businesses. Obama and his administration are little more than well dressed thugs.

You would think CEO's would be advised against stating publically their true feelings but i guess when you are emperor or king, laws don't apply.

"absolute power corrupts absolutely" - it just does.

They can't move to another country because contrary to what you think you know about building airplanes, not just anybody can do it. Oh, they'll try, but it will always come back like it has.

What would the company be like if they actually and honestly tried to work with their workforce instead of being a dictatorship? Billions lost of stockholders money on the 787 and now 747-8 because of wanting to pick fights. The Gang members in Chicago need to be ousted.

Took Airbus a decade to learn it well and they are still far behind the quality of Boeing aircraft. It will take China, Brazil, Russia the same just to get a substandard aircraft.

Generations of knowledge, not just rivet buckers.

Can't pull these babies over to the side of the road when something goes wrong.

Hey cj654, you should check out a podcast done by This American Life about an auto plant called NUMMI in California. The basic reason unions came about was for worker protection and worker safety. Now they are massive lobbying machines whose leaders are mostly concerned about increasing market share. America has laws on the books, which are as effective in South Carolina as they are in Washington, that protect workers. Unions should always exsist in America, especially where businesses are looking to take advantage of workers. However, this is not that case, Boeing is looking to expand and the governement is trying to tell it where it can expand. The NLRB is trying to increase market share for unions. It's a shame; and the NUMMI podcast may help cool your enthusiasm for unions a little.

Well, from the way you view citizens in South Carolina, those dumb Southerners will at least be spreading the meager pittance Boeing tosses their way amongst the clapboard shacks sprawled inside the borders of the United States.

Illinoisian. There are laws on the books, which the NLRB is supposed to address - which in this case they are trying. Why get mad when a corporation is prosecuted for something they did knowingly that was illegal? Unfortunately in many cases the fines for this type of behavior is so weak that union busting is calculated into the cost of doing business. Laws with little to no enforcement, and small penalties mean that more often than not - breaking the law is the norm.

Again, what was illegal about opening a new plant? What is unAmerican about building a new plant in another state?